Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« "New & Improved Stereotypes" | Evangelical Guidance Counselor... »

Friday, November 16, 2007

No War

posted by on November 16 at 10:16 AM

What’s happening in Iraq is not a war but an occupation. This distinction is very important. A war and an occupation are not the same things. The expression, “war on terror,” has the echo of some sense; the expression, “occupation on terror,” makes no sense at all. Yet that is what Americans are paying for: a nonsensical occupation on terror. A state of war requires a state. Iraq as a state is not at war with the US. It doesn’t have an army, and barely has a government. What’s there, what rules, is the force of an occupying power. Not war spending, but occupation costs.

RSS icon Comments

1

You are so right, C. I try to always call it for the occupation it is.

And if anyone has doubts about that fact, watch The Battle of Algiers.

Posted by Lola | November 16, 2007 11:31 AM
2

Air America has been trying to call it an occupation for a couple of years. (Randi Rhodes particularly will say we need to call it an occupation but then turn around in the same show and call it a war again.)

Democrats are wimps when it comes to commitment.

But give it a shot at calling it that Charles and good luck!!

BTW, there is an ANTI-WAR demonstration at Westlake starting in an hour. Notice it's not called an anti-occupation demonstration.

Posted by New Deal Demoncrat | November 16, 2007 11:58 AM
3

oooh, charles. keep that talk up and you'll find yourself decomposing in an oil drum somewhere in the nevada desert. i know. i've been there.

Posted by adrian | November 16, 2007 12:36 PM
4

a Preoccupation on Terror, I'd say.

Posted by davidLBC | November 16, 2007 12:53 PM
5

I never have, and never will, call what we are involved in a "war". It is indeed an Occupation. Not only that I refer to it as an "ILLEGAL OCCUPATION".

Posted by M | November 16, 2007 2:13 PM
6

Surely many of the Iraqi citizens have felt terror at the hands of the occupying force; therefore, "occupation OF terror".

Posted by Toby | November 16, 2007 2:14 PM
7

i'd have to disagree that the expression "war on terror" has any sense to it. terror in this context is nothing more than a tactic for clandestine groups pitted against larger, more powerful enemies. declaring war on a tactic is ridiculous, it's tantamount to declaring war on flanking movements or something. there is no sense to it, it's simply flashy sounding.
and yes iraq is an occupation of sorts rather than a war.

Posted by douglas | November 16, 2007 3:11 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).